After the public hearing on the proposed amendment had taken place, members of the King County Council who supported the measure altered it significantly to include appropriations ordinances (heretofore the responsibility of the King County Executive), then offered no opportunity for public comment. Passage of Charter Amendment #1 would allow the Council to refer appropriations ordinances to a popular vote, including appropriations for contingencies, emergencies, capital expenditures, work program allotments, interfund borrowing and reimbursement, and contracts requiring payment of funds from appropriations of subsequent fiscal years. Under the current charter, the power to initiate appropriations ordinances is assigned to the Executive, as part of the Executive branch's budget duties.

Charter Amendment #1 would also allow the following ordinances to be referred to the people: those providing for the immediate preservation of public peace, health or safety; those providing for the support of county government and its existing institutions; those providing for the compensation or working conditions of county employees. State law prohibits the referral of certain ordinances, including those that provide for collective bargaining or that approve a collective bargaining agreement.

The current charter requires nine Council votes to override an Executive veto. If the Council Referendum Amendment is approved, seven Councilmembers would be able to bypass an Executive veto.

Discussion

Background

The King County Charter currently provides for intergovernmental oversight of vital issues - transportation, water quality, and regional policies - through a system of regional committees composed of representatives of local and county jurisdictions. Each of the three committees meets regularly to provide meaningful regional intergovernmental review and recommendations to the Council. The charter allows the Council to reject or change the regional committee's recommendations with eight votes. By contrast, Charter Amendment #1 would allow the Council to refer the regional committee's recommendation to the voters with only seven votes.

The charter provides that a Charter Review Commission be convened every ten years to evaluate the charter, and to report recommended changes to the Council. It should be noted that either the Executive or the Council can initiate a review at other times or by other means. In the 30-year history of the charter, no Charter Review Commission has ever recommended extending the power of the referendum to the Council. Councils can utilize "advisory ballots" to access voter input on controversial county legislation (as was done in 1988 on transit), but always with the Executive retaining the veto option. Charter Amendment #1 would give the Council much greater power in relation to the Executive by lowering the number of Council votes needed to preclude his veto. The amendment would also allow the Council to defer difficult, controversial questions to the voters for decision instead of deliberating and voting on proposals. The net result of passage: to increase the power of the Council, and to decrease its accountability to the voters.

Example - Potential Impact on a Major Regional Decision
The timing of this amendment could significantly impact a major policy decision facing King Countyıs Executive and Councilmembers. The Executive and his staff have recommended that a third regional waste treatment plant be built in north King County or south Snohomish County at a cost of $1.1 billion. Referendum proponents on the Council favor an alternative proposal that would expand existing treatment plants at West Point and Renton and install a $120 million north/south pipeline under the Burke Gilman Trail. There is also disagreement as to whether new growth or existing users should pay a major portion of the costs of the third plant: the Executive proposes that new growth should pay, while the majority of the Council wants existing as well as new users to pay the long-term capital costs through business and homeowner sewerage treatment fees. With seven votes against the Executive's position, the Council could submit this contentious issue to the voters for resolution if Charter Amendment #1 were to pass on November 2. The Council now must work with the Executive, his staff and advisors to determine, through informed cooperation, the best alternative for the citizens of King County. Submitting this complex, multijurisdictional issue to the voters would take time to educate them fully, and would surely lead to schedule delays, increased facility costs and possibly fines for not meeting deadlines.

Arguments

For Passage: This amendment puts power in the hands of the people, where it belongs.
Against: The King County Charter already provides citizens with both the power of initiative and the power of referendum. Citizens may launch initiative drives with petitions on the county level, just as they can on the state level. And those who disapprove of a county government action can attempt to overturn it with a referendum to the people.

For Passage: The King County Charter is outdated. It is time for a change.
Against: Charter Amendment #1 is contrary to the intent of the Freeholders, and was adopted by the Council with a mere two weeks of public notice, and minimal discussion and input. Such a significant charter amendment should have been reviewed by a Charter Review Commission or a Council-sponsored review prior to Council action. The amendment places complex, controversial charter and county issues before the voters to decide. The 13 County Council members are elected to consult with their constituents and decide tough policy questions while working collaboratively with the Executive branch, and not defer contentious issues to the voters. Thatıs the elected representativeıs role in our democratic form of government.

For Passage: The Washington State Legislature has the power to submit issues to the voters to bypass the Governor's veto. This amendment gives the King County Council the same authority.
Against: At the state level, proposed referendums must be approved by both houses before they can be put to the voters. No such safeguard is written into Charter Amendment #1. This amendment gives seven people the right to refer complex and divisive measures to the voters of King County, measures that have historically been the purview of elected public officials.

For Passage: The Council has the sole right to propose amendments to revise the charter. This amendment gives voters, not the King County Executive, the right to make a final determination on those proposals.
Against: The Executive and his staff are charged with administering the departments of the county, yet the passage of this amendment would completely circumvent Executive branch involvement in many future county policy and budget decisions. Some decisions are best made by informed and responsive government officials. Our representative system of government allows for the separation of powers, with the executive branch, the legislative branch, the judiciary and the people each assuming responsibility for part of the democratic/governing process. In referring potentially contentious legislation to the voters, the Council abdicates the responsibilities it was elected to undertake, and in fact negates the very principle of representative government. Councilmembers and the Executive, working in cooperation, are best able to make certain decisions on behalf of the electorate. They must be held accountable.

For Passage: Charter Amendment #1 allows the voters to be involved in more decisions of county government.
Against: Every citizen of King County has two elected officials to represent his/her interests: a Councilmember elected in each of 13 districts, and an Executive elected by the county at large. Voters elect these officials trusting that they will fully investigate and become well versed in all particulars surrounding recommended legislation and/or appropriations; indeed they have staff and outside experts to help them do so. The passage of Charter Amendment #1, and the resulting referendums to voters, will force citizens to become policy experts on extraordinarily complex regional and county issues without the benefit of personal staff to collect data, evaluate intergovernmental implications, and analyze the possible effects of proposed actions.

Recommendation